Thursday, January 19, 2012

New Book on Arguing for Evolution

Did you know that helping is evidence for evolution? As Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner explain in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, this and most everything else in biology proves evolution to be an undeniable fact. Altruism, they explain, may seem to be a “problem” for evolution. (They put “problem” in quotes because, of course, there are no real problems for evolution. All those false predictions are simply explained by adjusting the theory.) In this case, most acts of so-called altruism are “anything but.” If an individual sounds an alarm to warn the others or dies to save the group, it is really just another evolutionary calculation. Does not such risky behavior maximize the chances that the all important genes will be propagated to the next generation? And so falling on hand grenades may seem to be a noble, heroic act, but actually it is simply a product of natural selection. As John Haldane once put it, “I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.”

But how did such complex behaviors evolve in the first place? How do we decide which behaviors maximize gene propagation versus simply terminating such propagation? Even something as seemingly simple as bacteria suicide is enormously intricate and complex. It is an elaborate molecular choreograph that isn’t going to arise by a few chance mutations.

Remember that selection cannot induce such designs. It can only select them once they have been randomly produced by those epicurean veering atoms. But chance mutations can’t create real-life complexities. There is no gradual path of tiny changes that morphs a tricycle into a jet airliner. Even simple molecular machines don’t show signs of gradual buildup.

There is also the “problem” of the many altruistic behaviors that don’t fit the evolutionary model. Such non reciprocal altruism hardly helps get one’s gene into future generations. Why does Mother Theresa help the needy in far away countries?

These and other thorny “problems” are not seriously addressed. Instead, Moore and Cotner present the usual non scientific, metaphysical proofs that mandate evolution. As philosopher Elliott Sober has pointed out, the strong evidences for evolution come from metaphysical rebukes of creationism.

For example, Moore and Cotner point to the pentadactyl pattern which is:

difficult to explain if the organisms originated independently of (and were therefore unrelated to) each other, for such an origin would not require pentadactyl limbs or, any other shared traits.

Why are such similarities difficult to explain if the organisms are not related by common descent? Because the organisms should not share any similarities. And how do evolutionists know that the organisms should not share any similarities? Because such similarities are not required. And what is the basis for these requirements? Evolutionary fitness, of course. But the pentadactyl pattern is presented as evidence for evolution and as such, it needs to be interpreted objectively. Otherwise the argument is circular.

Of course what is lurking behind all this is the usual evolutionary metaphysics. It is what Sober calls Darwin’s Principle. And if there was any doubt that evolution is a religious theory the authors dig deeper into the metaphysics:

Creationists have explained these developmental and structural similarities as the handiwork of a Creator who saved time and work by varying a basic theme. Darwin, however, considered such explanations to be useless, noting that “nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity … by utility or by the doctrine of final causes,” and that the similarities are “inexplicable” by traditional views of creationism.

Final causes is hopeless? Creationism is inexplicable? Well then yes, evolution is a fact. So while the evidence is unlikely on evolution, as Sober points out, it ironically makes evolution a fact:

This last result provides a reminder of how important the contrastive framework is for evaluating evidence. It seems to offend against common sense to say that E is stronger evidence for the common-ancestry hypothesis the lower the value is of [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis]. This seems tantamount to saying that the evidence better supports a hypothesis the more miraculous the evidence would be if the hypothesis were true. Have we entered a Lewis Carroll world in which down is up? No, the point is that, in the models we have examined, the ratio [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis divided by the probability of E given the separate-ancestry hypothesis] goes up as [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis] goes down. … When the likelihoods of the two hypotheses are linked in this way, it is a point in favor of the common-ancestry hypothesis that it says that the evidence is very improbable. [Evidence and Evolution, p. 314]

No matter that the evidence doesn’t fit evolution very well. Creationism is inexplicable, so evolution is a fact.

48 comments:

Abstract: Ever since Cicero's De Natura Deorum ii.34., humans have been intrigued by the origin and mechanisms underlying complexity in nature. Darwin suggested that adaptation and complexity could evolve by natural selection acting successively on numerous small, heritable modifications. But is this enough? Here, we describe selected studies of experimental evolution with robots to illustrate how the process of natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex traits such as adaptive behaviours. Just a few hundred generations of selection are sufficient to allow robots to evolve collision-free movement, homing, sophisticated predator versus prey strategies, coadaptation of brains and bodies, cooperation, and even altruism. In all cases this occurred via selection in robots controlled by a simple neural network, which mutated randomly.

It's really sad that someone with a science background like CH is so out of touch with modern research.

Cornelius Hunter: There is also the “problem” of the many altruistic behaviors that don’t fit the evolutionary model. Such non reciprocal altruism hardly helps get one’s gene into future generations. Why does Mother Theresa help the needy in far away countries?

Keep in mind that altruistic behavior in humans evolved before global transportation. In most of human history, those close to you physically were also often close to you genetically. Furthermore, if you helped a stranger, there was a reasonable chance of encountering that person again, hence benefiting from reciprocity.

Nobody claims that helping is evidence for evolution. There are evolutionary theories that aim to explain the evolution of helping behavior. Some of those theories are successful at explaining some of the variation in helping behavior. That's it.

Blas: But for darwinism is not enough get reciprocity, you need that altruistic behaviors led to more prolific descents. Who is going to get most fit descents? who helps, the helped or who do not help?

Try the first case first. Most of the time, in primitive environments, you are likely to be closely related to people you interact with. This is called kin selection.

As for the second case, it turns out that even though the person is a stranger, if there is a reasonable probability of meeting again, then there can be a fitness gain from altruism. If you do someone a small favor, they gain a small advantage. The next time you meet, if they refuse to return the favor, then you remember and cut off the exchange. But if the other person reciprocates, then you can build up a trusting relationship so that both parties gain a fitness advantage over people who don't cooperate in this fashion. As for the probability of meeting again, that's not actually that uncommon in the modern world, but in the primitive world, it was quite probable to meet someone again.

I am not surprised that you think that any book about evolution is supposed to show that something that is evidence for evolution, and that if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what evolution is supposed to teach, it confuses you.

Evolution is settled science. Cotner and Moore are exploring the development of altruism within the framework of evolution, the theory that works. Altruism is a puzzle WRT the strict "selfish gene" model, but mutually beneficial actions tend towards survivability. Why is this so hard for you?

Oh, right. You are a Creationist, which means that you are more open to ideas of origins than atheist. So open, in fact, that your brains fall out when you try to think.

Your ignorance of evolution is adorable. Evolution is an observation of the survival, reproduction and variable rate modification of multiple traits through multiple and observable processes. "Survival of the fittest" to reproduce is a driver of species survival. There are also malthusian principles involved. To characterize evolution as only involving individualistic survival is a poor understanding. It isn't hard to learn, unless you choose to be willfully ignorant.

If I help someone weaker than I to survive, then obviously survival of the fittest cannot be the law all organisms succumb to.

Obviously not survival of the fittest individual organism, but a gene may increase in frequency if it causes individual organisms to help other individual organisms that carry a copy of that gene, e.g. relatives.

That's why we asked if you understood kin selection. There is a high probability that someone you help is someone you are related to. That's because, in primitive society, most people near you are related to you. There's also some leverage involved. Sometimes a small effort can be a big benefit to someone else. If you help your hungry brother by giving him food when you have plenty, then you have helped propagate your own genes at little cost.

Do you understand this basic concept? (Helping strangers is a bit different, but you won't be able to follow that argument if you are having troubles with this scenario.)

You happen to have a mutant helper gene. Your children will have a reasonable probability of being born with this trait. They will help one another, and assuming cooperation in intelligent tool-wielding apes is advantageous, they will have an advantage over those who do not have the trait. Over time, the trait spreads through the local population.

This is highly simplified, but suppose you have a mutation, the helper gene, which causes you to care for your family. Some of your children will inherit the helper gene, so you will be caring for children with and without the helper gene.

In the next generation, those with the helper gene will likewise care for their children, while those without the helper gene will neglect them.

Now, assuming that caring for children results in positive fitness in the given environment, then over time, the helper gene will predominate.

"This is highly simplified, but suppose you have a mutation, the helper gene, which causes you to care for your family. Some of your children will inherit the helper gene, so you will be caring for children with and without the helper gene.

In the next generation, those with the helper gene will likewise care for their children, while those without the helper gene will neglect them.

Now, assuming that caring for children results in positive fitness in the given environment, then over time, the helper gene will predominate."

Zachriel be serious, take care of the children is not the same of altruism.

Blas: Zachriel be serious, take care of the children is not the same of altruism.

Blas, please remember your questions. You questioned how the process could get started. We explained that. You asked the same question again. We explained again. And we will explain once again.

In a primitive human environment, if you help others around you, you are likely helping those closely related to you, in particular, your children and your siblings. And that means you are helping to propagate your own genes. This works best when your help is limited to those closest to you, again, usually meaning your family.

The more interesting question is helping a stranger, but it turns out that there is a good chance in primitive environments that you will meet the stranger again (and this is often true even in modern society). That means there is a real possibility of friendship and reciprocity.

“Blas, please remember your questions. You questioned how the process could get started. We explained that. You asked the same question again. We explained again. And we will explain once again.”

Ok, I will answer again

“In a primitive human environment, if you help others around you, you are likely helping those closely related to you, in particular, your children and your siblings. And that means you are helping to propagate your own genes. This works best when your help is limited to those closest to you, again, usually meaning your family.”

Here we are talking about altruism not taking care of your family, the most shelfish take care of his family.

“The more interesting question is helping a stranger,”

Off course it is what are we talking about.

“ but it turns out that there is a good chance in primitive environments that you will meet the stranger again (and this is often true even in modern society). That means there is a real possibility of friendship and reciprocity”

No, you are the mutant with the altruistic gene, the helped do not has the gene it is not going to help you in the future.By the way, animals plans the future? The altruistic gene and the gene of the idea of the future appeared togheter in the evolution?

Blas: Here we are talking about altruism not taking care of your family, the most shelfish take care of his family.

The most selfish certainly do not take care of their families.

Zachriel: The more interesting question is helping a stranger

Blas: Off course it is what are we talking about.

As we mentioned at the start of the discussion, if you don't understand how selection works in general, and how it works with kin selection, then you probably won't understand the evolution of altruism.

Do you understand how kin selection works?

Blas: No, you are the mutant with the altruistic gene, the helped do not has the gene it is not going to help you in the future.

We explained this already. Let's make a simplifying assumption, that the altruism gene means you help someone regardless of relatedness. Who is most likely to be helped? Your children (some of whom carry the altruism gene), or someone in the next village?

ZachrielJan 23, 2012 01:43 PM"We explained this already. Let's make a simplifying assumption, that the altruism gene means you help someone regardless of relatedness. Who is most likely to be helped? Your children (some of whom carry the altruism gene), or someone in the next village?"

Why my children carryng the altruism gene will prevail against my children do not?Why my village with habitants carryng the altruism gene will prevail against the next village with nobody carryng it?And do not answer with family care, because Hyenas, lions, and tigers use the paternal care without the need of the altruism gene.

"Altruism develops in social situations where there is the prospect of reciprocity."

Wikipedia:"Pure altruism consists of giving something of value[citation needed] (a reward or benefit) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving)."

"It depends on the circumstance, but even you should recognize the advantages of cooperation in humans."

The question remain according to the definition of altruism, how the gene survived?

Blas, we've repeatedly asked you to take it one step at a time. Do you understand how an advantageous trait can be selected and become predominant in a population? Do you understand how kin selection works?

On a somewhat related note, Baylor University Medical Center has recently peer reviewed and published a paper criticizing chemical evolution and darwinism.

Written by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery, this paper highlights many of the problems with the purely naturalisic scenario.

And now, ladies and gentlement, here comes the part where we get to hear from a bunch of losers living in their parents basement who haven't done anything substantial with their lives making nasty comments about people they've never met and telling us how smart they are!

And now, ladies and gentlement, here comes the part where we get to hear from a bunch of losers living in their parents basement who haven't done anything substantial with their lives making nasty comments about people they've never met and telling us how smart they are!

On a somewhat related note, Baylor University Medical Center has recently peer reviewed and published a paper criticizing chemical evolution and darwinism.

Written by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery, this paper highlights many of the problems with the purely naturalisic scenario.

And now, ladies and gentlement, here comes the part where we get to hear from a bunch of losers living in their parents basement who haven't done anything substantial with their lives making nasty comments about people they've never met and telling us how smart they are!

And now, ladies and gentlemen, here comes the part where we get to hear from an ignorant Fundy who doesn't understand the first thing about evolutionary biology.

Now said ignorant Fundy has stumbled across a medical doctor's "Gish Gallop" style regurgitation of the Creationist PRATT list, of course with zero supporting evidence.

Tell you what Ignorant Fundy: why don't you pick one item off the laundry list and present your best evidence for it here. In return I'll present evidence from the scientific literature showing just how stupid and misinformed your claim is.

Tell you what Ignorant Fundy: why don't you pick one item off the laundry list

Well, first of all, THANK YOU for making the prediction I made come true so soon. That took what, five minutes?

Secondly, I have way more important things to do with my time than waste it arguing with some random punk on the Internet with a chip on his shoulder who has nothing better to do with his free time than hang out on Intelligent Design websites (which he supposedly hates) and spout off at people he doesn't know who have come to different conclusions about reality than he has.

Quite honestly, this is bizarre psychological phenomenon. You would be an interesting subject to pscyhoanalyze, but I have more important things to do atm.

Essentially what it boils down to is:

1) I don't care what your opinion of me is, and have absolutely nothing to prove to you.2) I seriously doubt that you have anything of value to offer, which is an observation based on the horrible logic and atrocious arguments you have attempted to use in the past.3) You are an obnoxious jerk, so even if I thought you knew what you were talking about (and I don't) I wouldn't give you the time of day.

Well, first of all, THANK YOU for making the prediction I made come true so soon. That took what, five minutes?

When you initiate a conversation by acting like a jackass, why are you surprised when you get treated like a jackass?

Secondly, I have way more important things to do with my time than waste it arguing with some random punk on the Internet

So the answer once again is you're nothing but mouth. Why did you post that stuff if you're unwilling to discuss or defend it?

You linked to some Creationist nonsense you don't understand and can't defend and made an arrogant blustering challenge. Then when you got called on it your crapped your pants and ran away again. Seems to be a common pattern with you.

Isn't this the point where you cry about what a poor persecuted Christian you are, and how everybody hates you?

I think there is a difference between cooperation and altruistic self sacrifice. I don't see how natural selection can select for behavior like a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades. I don't see how it would allow a Mother Theresa or her nuns to forego reproducing to devote themselves to the poor of Calcutta.I don't see how it allows people to sacrifice for an ideal like King and Country, or how it allows religious martyrdom. I've even read accounts of people risking their lives to save their pets. How can removing ones genes by death or voluntary celibacy from the gene pool improve ones chances at surviving? I don't think kin selection is an adequate answer because people will for people not related to them. They should be competing. And kin selection doesn't speak to martyrdom.

Can you see how incremental altruism can be benefitial? Feelings of love, a desire to make friends, a desire to belong to a group, a desire to work towards a greater goal... In day to day life--situations wherein most people don't have to decide to throw themselves on gernades--can you see how these types of altruism inspiring feelings can be benefitial? Its only in these extreme examples that altruism doesn't make sense. It does make sense however if you weigh a large amount of incremental benefit that a lineage recieves from non-sacrificial altruistic behavior versus a lesser total detriment from sacrificial behavior. We don't often have to jump on a gernade for our neighbor, but we might help move his couch. Its not that we have tendencies to sacrifice ourselves that makes us sucessful, its that we have tendencies to help eachother out which makes us successful. Its just that sometimes helping out can be taken to the extreem.

Also, no one seems to be mentioning the cost of not getting along with your neighbors. How do you think humanity would look today if every time two men encountered one another they felt an immediate desire to fight eachother? We would have no civilization. How about instead of animosity ambivalence? Still not as good as friendship.

natschuster: I don't think kin selection is an adequate answer because people will for people not related to them. They should be competing. And kin selection doesn't speak to martyrdom.

Not every act of altruism has to be a reproductive advantage for the trait to have been an evolutionary advantage over the evolutionary history of humans. Bravery in a young man might have won him the most desirable mate, or it might have got him killed. Bravery in an older man past his reproductive age might have saved his tribe, or it might have left him dead. Having done a stranger a small favor might have meant that one day he saved your life.

Meanwhile, in modern times, soldiers are trained to treat their soldiers-in-arms as brothers and sisters, so their natural desire to protect their families has been coopted to create military cohesion. And religion has coopted the same feelings of brotherhood to extend to everyone of the faith, or to all people.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/